|
|
|
| Land Property Rights Stability and Rural Labor Force Allocation: Perspectives of Agricultural Productivity Enhancement |
| Fang Shile1,2, Lai Huiying3, Huang Zuhui4, Xu Xinnan2 |
1.Modern Business Research Center, Zhejiang Gongshang University, Hangzhou 310018, China
2.School of Economics, Zhejiang Gongshang University, Hangzhou 310018, China
3.Hangzhou Liangzhu New City Management Committee, Hangzhou 311113, China
4.China Academy for Rural Development, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract We established a two-sector household occupational choice model to theoretically explore how land titling reform impacts rural labor force allocation. The model suggested that the enhancement in rural land property right induced households to allocate more labor in the agricultural sector through two channels: agricultural productivity improvement and land costs reduction, both of which increased rural income. Furthermore, we employed China Labor Dynamics Survey (CLDS) panel database, and exploited the new round of rural land titling reform in China as a quasi-natural experiment to empirically study how the enhancement of rural land property rights impacted labor resource allocation. Employing a difference-in-differences model, the empirical analysis examined the causal relationship and mechanisms between land property rights stability and the allocation of labor resources among rural households. The empirical results were consistent with the theoretical conclusion, indicating that enhancing the stability of land property rights increased the proportion of labor resources allocated to agriculture. This finding remained robust under propensity score matching difference-in-differences method, instrumental variable tests and placebo tests.The underlying mechanism was that the improvement of land property rights stability reduced transaction risks and costs, incentivizing agricultural inputs by rural households. This directly affected the allocation of land and capital, with the former promoting land consolidation and generating economies of land scale, and the latter facilitating the development of agricultural socialized services and forming economics of service scale. These factors collectively enhanced land and labor productivity, ultimately influencing the allocation of labor resources. The instability of property rights led to lower production efficiency, while the stabilization of rural land property rights could “pull back” high agricultural productivity households that were previously misallocated to non-agricultural sectors. Thus, this study provided a revision to the classical institutional economics theory. This phenomenon represented the true mechanism and significance of rural property rights reform for optimizing resource allocation from the perspective of China’s modernization.Heterogeneity analysis revealed that the impact of land property rights stability on household labor resource allocation varied across different family sizes and village characteristics. Specifically, stabilization of rural land property rights significantly increased the proportion of agricultural labor allocation for family with larger members, but had no significant impact on small households. The effect was not significant for villages with traditional food crops such as rice and wheat as the main products, but significant for villages with other non-traditional food crops such as corn and potatoes as the main products.Unlike previous studies which held the belief that agriculture was always impoverished and that the productivity of the agricultural sector was inherently lagging behind that of the non-agricultural sector, and the optimal allocation of factors was achieved as long as agricultural labor was transferred to the non-agricultural sector, we proposed that the reason for China’s low agricultural productivity and agricultural income was its incomplete land property system, which led to the mismatch of labor with originally high agricultural productivity allocated to the non-agricultural sector. The land titling reform increased agricultural productivity and agricultural income. As a result, the labor force was “correctly” pulled back to agriculture sector, which achieved optimized allocation of labor resources. This process was a manifestation of modernization with Chinese characteristics.Based on findings above, we proposed policy implication to improve the rural factor market development, to introduce relevant support policies for large-scale agricultural development, and to focus on guiding the rational, smooth and orderly flow of labor resource. This paper provides a perspective from China’s rural property rights system reform to study how to achieve “common prosperity” in the New Development Stage.
|
|
Received: 06 June 2023
|
|
|
|
1 Restuccia D. & Rogerson R.， “Policy distortions and aggregate productivity with heterogeneous establishments，” Review of Economic Dynamics， Vol. 11， No. 4 （2008）， pp. 707-720.
2 陈诗一、陈登科： 《中国资源配置效率动态演化——纳入能源要素的新视角》，《中国社会科学》2017年第4期，第67-83页。
3 Leight J.， “Reallocating wealth？ insecure property rights and agricultural investment in rural China，” China Economic Review， Vol. 40 （2016）， pp. 207-227.
4 钟甫宁、纪月清： 《土地产权、非农就业机会与农户农业生产投资》，《经济研究》2009年第12期，第43-51页。
5 Rozelle S. & Li G.， “Village leaders and land-rights formation in China，” The American Economic Review， Vol. 88， No. 2 （1998）， pp. 433-438.
6 姚志、高鸣： 《中国农村承包地确权：政策演进、关键问题与产权优化》，《中国软科学》2022年第6期，第72-84页。
7 杨宗耀、纪月清： 《地权稳定性与农户土地投资：基于确权政策预期与落地影响差异的讨论》，《中国土地科学》2022年第6期，第66-75页。
8 罗必良、张露： 《中国农地确权：一个可能被过高预期的政策》，《中国经济问题》2020年第5期，第17-31页。
9 张俪娜、罗必良、胡新艳等： 《地权稳定性对劳动力非农就业的长期影响——来自雷州半岛的新证据》，《中国农村观察》2023年第1期，第78-95页。
10 耿鹏鹏、罗必良： 《逃离抑或竞争：地权稳定性对农民教育投资的影响》，《经济评论》2023年第1期，第73-89页。
11 Yang D. T.， “China’s land arrangements and rural labor mobility，” China Economic Review， Vol. 8， No. 2 （1997）， pp. 101-115.
12 钱忠好： 《农村土地承包经营权产权残缺与市场流转困境：理论与政策分析》，《管理世界》2002年第6期，第35-45页。
13 Chari A.， Liu E. M. & Wang S. et al.， “Property rights， land misallocation， and agricultural efficiency in China，” The Review of Economic Studies， Vol. 88， No. 4 （2021）， pp. 1831-1862.
14 姚洋： 《中国农地制度：一个分析框架》，《中国社会科学》2000年第2期，第54-65页。
15 高叙文、方师乐、史新杰等： 《农地产权稳定性与农地生产率——基于新一轮农地确权的研究》，《中国农村经济》2021年第10期，第24-43页。
16 李丽、张耀宇、张安录： 《农地确权对农民工市民化的影响：经验分析与实证检验》，《中国人口·资源与环境》2023年第2期，第153-164页。
17 Mullan K.， Grosjean P. & Kontoleon A.， “Land tenure arrangements and rural-urban migration in China，” World Development， Vol. 39， No. 1 （2011）， pp. 123-133.
18 Giles J. & Mu R.， “Village political economy， land tenure insecurity， and the rural to urban migration decision： evidence from China，” American Journal of Agricultural Economics， Vol. 100， No. 2 （2018）， pp. 521-544.
19 方师乐、史新杰、高叙文： 《非农就业、农机投资和农机服务利用》，《南京农业大学学报（社会科学版）》2020年第1期，第139-149页。
20 李宁、何文剑、仇童伟等： 《农地产权结构、生产要素效率与农业绩效》，《管理世界》2017年第3期，第44-62页。
21 詹鹏、陶彦君： 《农地确权促进农村共富的效力多大》，《农业经济问题》2023年第2期，第33-49页。
22 郑淋议、钱文荣、李烨阳： 《农村土地确权对农户创业的影响研究——基于CRHPS的实证分析》，《农业技术经济》2020年第11期，第17-30页。
23 徐尚昆、王璐、杨汝岱： 《地权稳定与农业生产》，《金融研究》2022年第6期，第133-152页。
24 日］藤田昌久、［美］保罗·克鲁格曼、［英］安东尼·J.维纳布尔斯： 《空间经济学——城市、区域与国际贸易》，梁琦译，北京：中国人民大学出版社，2011年。
25 Ranis G. & Fei J. C.， “A theory of economic development，” American Economic Review， Vol. 51 （1961）， pp. 533-565.
26 de Janvry A.， Emerick K. & Gonzalez-Navarro M. et al.， “Delinking land rights from land use： certification and migration in Mexico，” American Economic Review， Vol. 105， No. 10 （2015）， pp. 3125-3149.
27 Adamopoulos T. & Restuccia D.， “The size distribution of farms and international productivity differences，” American Economic Review， Vol. 104， No. 6 （2014）， pp. 1667-1697.
28 Lucas R. E. Jr.， “On the size distribution of business firms，” Bell Journal of Economics， Vol. 9， No. 2 （1978）， pp. 508-523.
29 叶剑平、丰雷、蒋妍等： 《2016年中国农村土地使用权调查研究——17省份调查结果及政策建议》，《管理世界》2018年第3期，第98-108页。
30 林文声、王志刚、王美阳： 《农地确权、要素配置与农业生产效率——基于中国劳动力动态调查的实证分析》，《中国农村经济》2018年第8期，第64-82页。
31 孙琳琳、杨浩、郑海涛： 《土地确权对中国农户资本投资的影响——基于异质性农户模型的微观分析》，《经济研究》2020年第11期，第156-173页。
32 耿鹏鹏、罗必良： 《农地确权是否推进了乡村治理的现代化？》，《管理世界》2022年第12期，第59-76页。
33 马俊凯、李光泗： 《农地确权、要素配置与种植结构：“非粮化”抑或“趋粮化”》，《农业技术经济》2023年第5期，第36-48页。
34 程令国、张晔、刘志彪： 《农地确权促进了中国农村土地的流转吗？》，《管理世界》2016年第1期，第88-98页。
35 杨广亮、王军辉： 《新一轮农地确权、农地流转与规模经营——来自CHFS的证据》，《经济学（季刊）》2022年第1期，第129-152页。
36 林文声、秦明、苏毅清等： 《新一轮农地确权何以影响农地流转？——来自中国健康与养老追踪调查的证据》，《中国农村经济》2017年第7期，第29-43页。
37 李江一、仇童伟： 《农地确权与农业生产结构调整：来自中国家庭金融调查的证据》，《财贸研究》2021年第9期，第57-69页。
38 胡新艳、许金海、陈文晖： 《农地确权方式与农户农业服务外包行为——来自PSM-DID准实验的证据》，《南京农业大学学报（社会科学版）》2022年第1期，第128-138页。 |
| [1] |
. [J]. , 2003, 33(5): 154-. |
|
|
|
|
2023, Vol. 53 
